Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd v Dudzik - [2022] QDC 245

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd v Dudzik & Anor [2022] QDC 245

PARTIES:

GOLD PROPERTY PARTNERS PTY LTD
(ACN 611 852 307)
(Plaintiff)

V

JONATHAN MICHAEL DUDZIK
(First Defendant)

AND

LISA MARIE DUDZIK
(Second Defendant)

AND

D J ROBERTS (CONSTRUCTION) PTY LTD
(ACN 110 631 331)
(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2996/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2022

JUDGE:

Prskalo A/DCJ

ORDER:

Application for summary judgment dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS OR APPLICANTS – where there is an application by the defendants for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 UCPR – where the court is not satisfied that the statutory requirements of r 293 UCPR have been met, namely, the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the challenged part of the claim, nor that there is no need for a trial – where the application for summary judgment is dismissed.

LEGISLATION:
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 115
Property Law Act1974 (Qld), s 199

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 292, 293

CASES:
Bakewell v Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd [2019] NSWCA 199
Bickford t/a Bickfords Solicitors v Briley [2006] QDC 187
Chan & Ors v Macarthur Minerals Ltd& Ors [2019] QSC 143
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232
LCR Mining Group Pty Ltd v Ocean Tyres Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 105
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85
Willmott & Anor v McLeay & Anor [2013] QCA 84

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104

COUNSEL:

P Travis for the plaintiff
O Cook for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Axia Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff
Sykronos Legal for the first and second defendants

This is an application brought by the first and second defendants for summary judgment against the plaintiff pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The principles of summary judgment are well-established. Pursuant to r 293(2), the court may give judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim and may make any other order the court considers appropriate if the court is satisfied that:
(a) The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on all or part of the plaintiff’s claim; and

(b) There is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim.

In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232 at [17], Williams JA (with whom McMurdo P and Atkinson J agreed) stated:
“… ultimately the rules are there to facilitate the fair and just resolution of the matters in dispute. Summary judgment will not be obtained as a matter of course and the judge determining such…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd v Dudzik and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QDC 245
Decision Date: 4 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd v Dudzik involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Dudzik. The nature of the dispute centred around an application by the defendants for summary judgment under rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the statutory requirements of rule 293 UCPR were satisfied, specifically whether the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding on the challenged part of the claim, or that there was no need for a trial.

In considering the application, the court meticulously assessed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It was critical to determine if the plaintiff's claims were legally untenable or if there were genuine issues of fact that warranted a trial. After a thorough review, the court found that the statutory criteria for granting summary judgment were not met. The court concluded that there were factual disputes that required resolution, and thus, the plaintiff had a real prospect of succeeding on some parts of the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the matter to proceed to trial.

The court's decision was grounded in the requirement that the plaintiff's claims be entirely without merit or that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Given that the court found the latter not to be the case, the application was appropriately denied. The dismissal of the summary judgment application meant that the parties would continue with the litigation process, with the substantive issues to be determined at a trial. The court's ruling ensured that the defendants' application was evaluated rigorously, upholding the procedural integrity of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for summary judgment dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Gold Property Partners Pty Ltd v Dudzik & Anor [2022] QDC 245
PARTIES:	GOLD PROPERTY PARTNERS PTY LTD (ACN 611 852 307) (Plaintiff) V JONATHAN MICHAEL DUDZIK (First Defendant) AND LISA MARIE DUDZIK (Second Defendant) AND D J ROBERTS (CONSTRUCTION) PTY LTD (ACN 110 631 331) (Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	2996/2021
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 August 2022
JUDGE:	Prskalo A/DCJ
ORDER:	Application for summary judgment dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS OR APPLICANTS – where there is an application by the defendants for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 UCPR – where the court is not satisfied that the statutory requirements of r 293 UCPR have been met, namely, the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the challenged part of the claim, nor that there is no need for a trial – where the application for summary judgment is dismissed.
LEGISLATION:	Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 115 Property Law Act1974 (Qld), s 199 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 292, 293
CASES:	Bakewell v Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd [2019] NSWCA 199 Bickford t/a Bickfords Solicitors v Briley [2006] QDC 187 Chan & Ors v Macarthur Minerals Ltd& Ors [2019] QSC 143 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232 LCR Mining Group Pty Ltd v Ocean Tyres Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 105 Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85 Willmott & Anor v McLeay & Anor [2013] QCA 84 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104
COUNSEL:	P Travis for the plaintiff O Cook for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	Axia Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff Sykronos Legal for the first and second defendants